Peter:
>>The accuracy of  tests is under some dispute.
>>See: <http://www.mikementzer.com/proteinpart2.html>

Amadeus:
>I've read mikementzer. His main points are influence
>by anabolica,

Please explain your concern.

Amadeus:
>short period studies

How short were they and does this necessarily make them
weak?

Amadeus:
>and disregarding of some protein loss.

I would think they would want to do the opposite.

Amadeus:
>The first two don't apply to the study of the Max
>Planck Gesellschaft I have. The third, protein loss
>is very well monitored.

Please clarify how this study was different.  Was it
published, has it been replicated and is there an abstract
that can be accessed?

Amadeus:
>The test persons must "deliver" all of their waste (even when not
>in the lab). They said that cheating it was very easy to discover.

How so?

Amadeus:
>At last they had to live for two weeks at the exact balance point.

What is the significance of this?  How was it established that
"the exact balance point" is optimal?

Amadeus:
>So only sweat wasn't accounted.

Do you know what percentage of nitrogen loss is reflected in sweat?
I would think it would vary with the activity level.

Amadeus:
>Mikemenzer wants to account additional protein demand
>by low energy in the diet. This is logical.

By low energy is meant low calorie?

Amadeus:
>The MaxPlanck study used enough of calories by a base
>of starch, fat and vitamins which provided enough energy
>but no nitrogen.

Which showed that...?

Amadeus:
>Btw, the higher the excretion (by sweat, urine) of
>nitrogen is, the higher would be the resulting protein need.

Yes.

Amadeus:
>So increased untracked losses would result in higher
>results, wouldn't they?

I do not understand.  How would you monitor "untracked losses"?

Amadeus:
>This study resulted in a protein intake of 0.34 grams of protein
>per kg bodyweight to establish exact protein balance for the best
>protein they found.  Anything more was just excreted as ammonia/urea.
>The best protein was a combination of potatoe and egg protein which
>yielded 136% value on a scale where egg hass 100% and meat has 89%.
>That means for meat you needed some 50% more.

I suspect that the MaxPlanck institute is influenced by
vegetarica. ;-)  Does the study mention the subject's
activity levels and how their body mass was monitored?

Peter